This is taken from Richard Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb: > Apprentices learned three broad criteria of scientific judgment. The first criterion was plausibility. That would eliminate crackpots and frauds. It might also (and sometimes did) eliminate ideas so original that the orthodox could not recognize them, but to work at all, science had to take that risk. The second criterion was scientific value, a composite consisting of equal parts accuracy, importance to the entire system of whatever branch of science the idea belonged to, and intrinsic interest. The third criterion was originality. Patent examiners assess an invention for originality according to the degree of surprise the invention produces in specialists familiar with the art. Scientists judged new theories and new discoveries similarly. Plausibility and scientific value measured an idea’s quality by the standards of orthodoxy; originality measured the quality of its dissent. And this is taken from Donald Maass' Writing the Breakout Novel: > The key ingredients that I look for in a fully formed breakout premise are (1) plausibility, (2) inherent conflict, (3) originality and (4) gut emotional appeal. It's interesting that plausibility and originality would show up as important criteria in both science and fiction-writing. Conflict and gut emotional appeal is absent as a factor in scientific judgment, replaced by the qualities of accuracy, relevance and interest.